SHAMSHAD ALI Versus State

ORDER

SHAHNAWAZ TARIQ, J.--- Through captioned criminal miscellaneous application, applicant Shamshad Ali has impugned order dated 14.01.2015, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Kandiaro, whereby summary submitted by the Investigating Officer under 'C' Class was approved in 'B' Class.

2. Relevant facts as spelt out from the FIR are that complainant alleged that on 01.12.2014, accused persons on gun point snatched money as well as mobile phone form him; hence instant FIR.

3. Learned counsel for applicant contended that learned trial Magistrate has based his order on the point that when Investigating Officer has visited the place of wardhat, foot prints were not available at the spot; that the alleged incident occurred on 01.12.2014, while place of incident was visited on 12.12.2014 as such due to passing of 11 days, it was not possible that such foot prints remained intact. He further contended that applicant will be satisfied if the impugned order may be modified and summary report submitted by the Investigation Officer, may be approved in 'C' Class instead of 'B' Class. He relied upon the case law reported as 2010 YLR 49.

4. Learned APG appearing for the State has not supported the impugned order passed by the leaned trial Magistrate and contended that learned trial Court had not issued any show cause notice to the complainant prior to passing such finding for initiating proceedings under Section 182, P.P.C against the applicant; that Investigation Officer has rightly submitted summary report under 'C' Class, which may be approved.

5. Perusal of material available on record and consideration of the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties emanate that applicant lodged FIR regarding snatching of his cell phone and cash by the accused which was registered on 01.12.2014, however, Investigating Officer visited the place of wardhat on 12.12.2014 and prepared such mashirnama whereby he mentioned that foot prints of the culprits and marks of tyres of vehicle were not available at the spot, indeed due to passing of 11 days, it was not possible that foot prints of accused and marks of tyres be available at the spot. Consequently, neither complainant could be dragged under section 182, P.P.C. nor it is required under the law, particularly when case of complainant remained unproven due to sufficient evidence or deficiency of direct evidence. Bare perusal of impugned order reflects that neither any show cause notice was issued by the Magistrate to the complainant nor sound reasons have been mentioned in impugned order while approving summary report under 'B' Class which was submitted by the Investigating Officer in 'C' Class.

6. Considering the above facts and circumstances, impugned order dated 14.01.2015, is modified to the extent of approving summary report submitted by the I.O. in 'C' Class instead of 'B' Class. Consequently, instant criminal miscellaneous application stands disposed of in above terms.

WA/S-2/Sindh Order modified.